Transmitting the telephone number of an originating station (calling party) to a destination station (called party) was initially hailed to be an important advance in protecting the privacy of victims of obscene and harassing phone calls. Repeated telemarketing calls could be avoided and even computers would be better protected by an ability to refuse calls from all but a few originating stations. Additionally, recognition of the telephone number of the originating station could be used to provide distinctive ringing-a special ringing signal that occurs when the originating number matches a telephone number stored within the call identification equipment.
A number of patents have issued which illustrate implementations of calling line identification service (Caller I.D.). For example U.S. Pat. No. 4,551,581, issued to C. A. Doughty on Nov. 5, 1985, discloses an apparatus and method used at a telephone company office for identifying and forwarding the telephone number of the calling party during a silent interval between ringing; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,924,496, issued to R. Figa et al. on May 8, 1990, discloses a telephone station that detects and displays the originating number as well as the name of the party associated therewith.
Although this technology is growing rapidly, it has not been universally embraced because of concerns surrounding the privacy of the calling party. And while it would be frivolous to contend that the privacy rights of the caller exceed those of the person being called, particularly when harassment or telemarketing is the reason for the call, the State of Pennsylvania has ruled that Caller I.D. violates both the state's wiretap act (nearly identical to federal statutory provisions) and privacy rights guaranteed by the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitution. Pennsylvania's ruling responds to a number of legitimate situations where calling party privacy is entitled to greater protection including: calls to "help-lines," anonymous crime-stop information, and persons under protective custody or at a shelter. Additionally, persons with unlisted telephone numbers may be entitled to greater privacy because they pay a premium that others who allow their name, address and phone number to be published, do not.
One scheme for protecting the privacy of callers is provided by a service wherein callers first dial a "1-900" number that is automatically answered with a voice instruction to wait for dial tone and then enter "1," area code, and the number to be called. Although such traceless telephone services avoid transmission of the calling party's actual telephone number, the cost of such services is high and they appear to thwart any privacy rights that the called party might have.
Another scheme for protecting the privacy of callers is a service known as "call blocking" wherein, for a fee, a subscriber's telephone number is not forwarded. Indeed, this particular service represents the natural evolution of unlisted telephone number service. Unfortunately, the mere existence of techniques for protecting one's privacy might not be a suitable safeguard to overcome challenges based on a Constitutional right. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide Caller I.D. service while safeguarding the right of privacy for each of the parties.